Really? Where do I sign up?!

Seriously. Why should Drinking Liberally parent group Living Liberally look to its chapters to raise funds when we can just sit back and lean on Big Daddy Soros?

Perhaps Milwaukee County First should talk to him, too! CRG is getting outside funding; why can’t we?

“Global warming” is the phrase of the decade, the Global Language Monitor declared this week.  Also making the top 25 words of the decade is “truthiness“.  This word was coined by political satirist Stephen Colbert to describe the  fondness for appeals to emotion and gut feeling, rather than facts, in contemporary political discourse.  He particularly applied it to the Bush administration’s penchant to make public statements that sounded true but contained little factual information, and even untruths.

Unfortunately, truthiness is rampant right now over climate change/global warming.  Websites such as “Friends of Science” and astroturf groups like “Information Council for the Environment” or the “National Resources Stewardship Council” have a truthiness ring to them.  The trouble is, “Friends of Science” is not a friend of science but is funded by oil and gas companies.  And the only resources that the National Resource Stewardship Council is worried about stewarding are those of those same oil and gas companies, which fund it as well.

Articles on climate change, whether on news websites or in local and national newspapers, are followed by a flood comments from deniers making unsubstantiated and misleading statements.  In response, I noticed a comment recently saying “Can anyone respond to this article, or only lobbyists?”

Don’t doubt that there is a war being waged right now for the hearts and minds of citizens in industrialized countries.  There are companies with extremely deep pockets who are very invested in maintaining the status quo.  They got rich by exploiting our dependence on fossil fuels, and they’d like to keep it that way.

But don’t take my word for it.  Whenever you hear a discussion/rant on climate change, make sure before you believe everything you are being told that you take the time to consider the background of the person or institution offering the information. Do the vast majority of the world’s scientists really have a conspiracy going to fool the rest of us?  Or are there vested interests out there willing to put time and money into confusing the issue?  If you want to investigate further,  DeSmogBlog is a good place to start, as are OpenSecrets.org and ClimateSight. But don’t take my word for it – check into it yourself!

For some reason the entire world has suddenly decided that they should join this whiny anti-harassment group:

Click for full size.

Now I’m all for kids not harassing each other and being mean and such (though I do find all of the literature and support groups and what not on the subject a bit tiring), but I can’t support this group based on the fact that its creator and author is a clear bigot. The period is perhaps one of the most important and certainly the most frequently used punctuation marks. Its importance to the way we speak and write is immediately noticeable when it is omitted. Such is the case with the group description of “ACCEPT PEOPLE FOR WHO THEY ARE , don’t judge.” For someone who preaches so passionately about accepting our friends and neighbors in the LGBT community, different racial groups, and of different girths, Ryan Jacob Trufant, whose first crime was stealing my first name, seems to be quite the punctuation bigot. Well I’m calling you out Ryan: a comma is not the same thing as a period and I demand that you give the period the rightful place in your writing that it deserves. The period is a noble and important part of the punctuation community and has overcome more hardship than the comma will ever know. Constantly bombarded with harassment from the backslash, the question mark, the less than sign, the letter L, both the colon and its bastard son with the comma, the semicolon, and even the comma itself. Its only friend in the world is the greater than sign which bravely shields it from the onslaught of discriminatory practices of its colleagues.

No seriously though: you know where the period key is now. Use it. Its slightly annoying that you don’t.

As my dear friend Donnell Johnson says:

Come on, Tiger. Even a billion Chinese know the truth…

Somehow between classes and blogging, I missed Westboro Baptist Church’s very special visit to Boston University today, but in the words of Lewis Prothero in V For Vendetta ,”I wish I’d been there.” According to friend and fellow blogger Steven McVerry, the notorious group of anti-gay, antisemitic, anti-American, pro-9/11  assholes picketed outside of Hillel House on Bay State Road today until about 4 PM. There was a counter protest as well, which moved to Marsh Plaza. Steven added, “They picket everywhere. Lately they have been scheduling universities that are “‘accepting” of gays and jews. I’m honored that they chose us, that being the criteria. Go BU!”

My friend Bobby was there today and snapped some pictures of the bigotry in action:

Its ironic because while this was going on, I was in my WR 100 class, Resistance During the Holocaust, giving a presentation about the production of Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List. In my presentation I talked about how Spielberg, who received an honorary degree from BU last year, had dealt with antisemitism earlier and his life and faced a considerable amount of it while producing the film. However, for me, antisemitism has never been something I have really seen openly; to me its almost like something I know is real but is invisible. That’s why it so surprises, disturbs, and utterly disgusts me to see filth like this on my campus (even though I technically didn’t see it). It amazes me that people such as these, people so far separated from any kind of logical or rational thought, can possibly exist. Furthermore, its nauseating to see a child among their ranks.

I support free speech, but bigotry is intolerable [no pun intended]. [Okay, pun slightly intended]. [I'll say "pun realized," because I realized it was punny after the fact].

To learn more about the Westboro Baptist Assholes, please check out this Facebook group.

On my Facebook profile I recently changed my political views to “whatever Michael Moore tells me.” Its meant to poke fun at how much faith I put in my favorite portly filmmaker. However, after today, there might be more truth to what my Facebook currently says than I intended. I say this because Moore just got me to do a complete 180 on a position I have been contemplating for months.

For some reason when Obama was elected I became slightly less cynical about the war in Afghanistan. I have always wanted both that war and the war in Iraq to end and looked for candidates who advocated troop withdrawal. But when General McChrystal came out and said that we needed 40,000 more troops to finish the job in Afghanistan my initial thought was, “Well I would hate to send more innocent soldiers to die for another country, but what do I know? He’s a general, I’m sure he knows whats best.” I’ve never really been a military guy – don’t get me wrong, I support the troops and have a cousin who recently came home from a brave tour of duty in Iraq – but I have always been more of a “lets not go to war” kind of person. However, in the case of Afghanistan, a country which once harbored terrorists who wounded our nation and is currently run by a rag-tag “democratic” government plagued by corruption, I was in favor of at least a slight troop increase. I would hate to see that country fall back into the hands of terrorists, like critics of withdrawal tell me it will if troop levels aren’t increased.

The strange thing is that during the Bush administration I had a different attitude. I wanted to get out of there, maybe continue the search for Bin Laden, but with a lesser military presence in Afghanistan, the population of which wants and wanted us out. Additionally, my reasons for wanting to keep them there until today amounted to occupation, and essentially turning it into a military state; I wanted our military to keep their government in check via occupation. This is a strange position for me, and out of my character. Somewhere along the Hope-Train I’ve been on I forgot that this war was started to eliminate Bin Laden and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan and has since lost its focus.

What I am getting at is that I supported General McChrystal’s call for troop increases until I read this open letter to President Obama from Michael Moore:

As afraid I am to admit it, that letter changed my stance on this issue. I had lost sight of the fact that there are more pressing domestic issues at home than the stability of the Afghan government and the negligible terrorist presence there. How could I possibly justify my desire to see more men and women go to senselessly kill and be killed, all while spending billions upon billions of dollars, while there are people dying everyday here at home? Additionally, when did I become someone who put my faith in generals. As Moore points out in the letter, generals have failed us time and time before:

It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That’s the way General Washington insisted it must be. That’s what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. “You’re fired!,” said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in’ hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).

I do disagree with Moore on one point: I do not believe that Obama, should he follow through with his plans to send more troops, can be characterized as a war president. He surely won’t be remembered as the man who ended the war (at least not in his first term), but the desire for war is not something that is characteristic about him. He did not start this war and he surely does not want to continue it, but is folding under pressures to do so, maybe on the belief that adding more troops will accelerate the process and end the war sooner. Despite the fact that I may, after having read this letter, disagree with the decision to increase troop levels, unlike Rush Limbaugh, I do not hope that the president fails. I hope that it ends up being the case that more troops was the ticket to a speedy withdrawal from Afghanistan and an elimination of a terrorist presence. However, I hope that Obama takes the time to read Mr. Moore’s letter and reverses his decision.

I still have hope in Obama, and he will have my vote even if he sends more troops over seas. However, after having read Michael Moore’s letter, I no longer believe it is the best decision for our country.

The Politico is a true Beltway institution, and emblematic of so much of what is sick with our journalism. Today, John Harris has a piece called “7 stories Obama doesn’t want told.” It’s about controlling the narratives and memes that constitute the image of Obama. Hmm, well that could be interesting. Maybe something about how Obama hasn’t come through in his promises regarding civil liberties, and how this undermines his claim to represent change? Or maybe something about how his recent decision to ramp up Afghanistan tells us something about his plans that undermines the antiwar credibility he rode to victory in the Democratic primaries. Let’s take a look…

That’s the Chicago Way

This is a storyline that’s likely taken root more firmly in Washington than around the country. The rap is that his West Wing is dominated by brass-knuckled pols.

…

He’s a pushover

If you are going to be known as a fighter, you might as well reap the benefits. But some of the same insider circles that are starting to view Obama as a bully are also starting to whisper that he’s a patsy.

The fact that those are mutually exclusive doesn’t phase Harris one bit, I’m sure. Likewise, remember earlier this year, when Obama was deciding which Bush-era practices to continue or abandon in the wra on terror? We were simultaneously told that Obama was giving up the war and policies that made us safe, and thus will kill us all; AND Obama is actually continuing Bush’s policies, so it’s complete vindication, see! Both critiques were heard from the right.

Or, going back even further to the election, Obama (and Michelle) were both dangerous, angry blacks who hated America and wanted to kill whitey, and were also wine-sipping arugula-munching elitists. Because those two always go together.

That’s one thing about criticism of Obama that’s always been difficult for me to understand. People just can’t seem to settle on the best way to attack him, so they take a shotgun approach and hope that something will stick. But when you make subsequent critiques that are mutually exclusive, I’m pretty sure it’s not persuasive.

Demi Moore on the cover of W this month. A little unnatural if you ask me.

Every year-end we learn of new words that have made their way into the English lexicon. This year, such accolades have been awarded to “unfriend”, “sexting”, “netbook”, and “paywall”. Previous years have introduced “carbon neutral”, “truthiness”, and “blog” (which is ironically what you are reading right now). In that vein, it would appear that as some terms enter the language others are destined to depart. Here are ten terms that have faded or will perhaps soon be gone:

Where is the nearest payphone?

He sounds like a broken record.

Let’s go to the video tape.

What’s black and white and read all over?

Breaker, Breaker, what’s your 20?

I need your John Hancock.

She’s a walking encyclopedia!

They’re pen pals.

Pardon me. What time is it?

Ask for directions.

Credits: Boston Globe, Steve Rubel, PC World, Clip Art

Posted via email from David Alpern’s Perspectives

WARNING: this video is sad.

(via Gothamist)

The typical image I have of a New Yorker is, to be honest, and I mean this in the most affectionate of ways, kind of an asshole. The typical New Yorker as movies and television and stereotypes have taught me is a badass, someone who don’t take shit from nobody, someone who stands behind his fellow New Yorkers. Um as douchey-mcdouchebag said in Spiderman, “You mess with one of us you mess with all of us,” before throwing a rock or something pointless at the Green Goblin. So also my conception of the New Yorker is that he is kind of stupid. Jk lols.

Messed with one of them and therefore all of them and therefore got hit with a rock or tomato or something.

Anyways, enough mockery and sarcasm. My point is, when somebody punches me, my instinct, my desire, and my responsibility is to punch them back, as hard as or harder than they punched me. I think our innate desire for revenge is part of what makes us human. We love to see the people who hurt us get hurt and often we even love to do the hurting. Which is why I don’t understand all of the bitching surrounding Attorney General Holder’s decision to try five of the 9/11 masterminds in New York City just blocks away from the site where they murdered thousands. I think this is a great decision and I don’t see why so many people, especially the people of New York – the people who lost the most on 9/11 – don’t feel the same. If it is something that only a New Yorker can understand and that as an external observer I will never be able to, I would love to understand. However, as an outsider, I think it is a great idea to try these terrorists on American soil in American courts. Some of the opposition claims that “oh well you can never predict juries rah, rah, rah.” Really? For some reason I feel like if you were to put Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a room with a dozen New Yorkers, he would be beaten to death in seconds. For some reason I feel like a jury of New Yorkers would do the same. And you know what, if he is tried in civilian court and for some crazy reason the jury finds him not guilty, let him go, and kill him immediately. I mean lets be honest – the US has already violated its own constitution numerous times with his holding as well as the holding of hundreds of other suspected terrorists – why stop there?

What this comes down to for me is that, as an American, there is nothing I want to see more than those responsible for 9/11 brought to justice. The important word there is see. I want to watch it happen. I don’t want the trial hidden away in some secret military tribunal. I think it should be a public event, and I can think of no  better place than the place that was hurt most: New York. The ability to watch it happen and to make it happen is the best medicine for the pain inflicted on this country by the attacks. We’ve waited far too long. When and if we catch Bin Laden, which we almost certainly never will, I’m all in favor of a public hanging. No lie, no lie.

Warren Towers is a building that I genuinely think may have been built to be as functionally inconvenient as possible. I  mean any building which requires two massive elevators to reach the bottom floor clearly wasn’t designed by people with function in design, especially when one considers that 2,000 people use those escalators every day. Just as inconvenient as the escalators are the massive, 5,000 pound doors students have to struggle to pry open whenever they want to enter the building. Granted, the two doors with the handicap button are more massive than the others, but still. Now, this handicap button brings me to my point.

The towering monoliths of Warren. Not the three people, the doors.

Whenever I enter or leave the building, I press that button so one of the three sets of double doors opens automatically. Whenever I do this with a group of people I am attacked with accusations of laziness and cries of “YOU PRESS THE BUTTON?!” Yes, I press the button, but I argue that it isn’t a matter of laziness as it is a matter of intelligence. Unless we consider the physical labor of opening a door something morally virtuous or physically or spiritually rewarding, it makes no sense to NOT  press the button. One has two options: press a button and walk through the doors without any further physical labor and allow dozens of others passing through the door to do the same or struggle to open the extremely heavy door and struggle to hold it open for the next struggler passing through. Why would anyone do the latter and why would anyone forgo the convenience and efficiency of the former?

I understand why someone would hastily label my pressing of the button as lazy, for it is certainly an action which seeks to avoid physical activity, but I think logical laziness is far more dangerous. To call me lazy is analogous to calling someone lazy who, when built into a house of cinder blocks which requires the deconstruction and rebuilding of the front door whenever the owner enters or exits, elects to use the weightless side-door which sits on a hinge. I am built into a home which has built into it many inconveniences, and I simply use a method to lessen the prominence of one of these. That is not lazy. That is efficient and intelligent. Basically, stop bitching.

Everyone has gotten that strange friend request on Facebook or Myspace from a complete stranger and faced whether or not to accept. Making that decision on MySpace is considerably more shallow for unless you’re a MySpace whore, the decision generally comes down to physical attractiveness. Facebook, however, is less subjective  and the decision is generally determined by mutual friends. Mutual friends and physical attractiveness are always a sure-fire thing.

At any rate, I recently received a Facebook friend request from Carter Field, which I just assumed was a fan page for a baseball stadium named in honor of the late pop star Aaron Carter [I hope this starts a rumor and Aaron has to tweet to prove he lives]. I noticed several mutual friends and the fact that it was a member of the Medway High School network, so I accepted. The whole physically attractive thing didn’t play a role at all…

Carter Field, no big deal.

As is common with a new Facebook friend, I did a once over the profile and came to the same likely conclusion that Jacqui Frasca came to: Carter Field? More like Carter Fraud. HAH. So to voice my approval of Jacqui’s suspicions I offered my favorite variation of “who is” that I have ever heard (coined by my friend Laura): “What is a Carter Field?” Little did I know I was unlocking a mysterious space epic with stolen identities, robots, Artificial Intelligence, aliens, buttfucking, holy breasts, and most importantly PET SOCIETY, the legendary annoying Facebook game. I am a straight up Glenn Beck style hero of truth:

THE TRUTH!

AH-HAH! So seems like someone thought they could steal Keanu Reeve’s picture and make a fake Facebook account to be able to play whatever the fuck Pet Society is more often eh?! Not while I’m around. You’ve been exposed.

via Postsecret

BU’s Patronizing Attempts to Keep Me Healthy, Part One

There are always tables set up outside the dining hall, either begging for donations or giving out information about student organizations. In other words, I always ignore the tables outside the dinning hall, as I did today. However, when I saw a girl happily looking at the free t-shirt she had just gotten along with accompanying stickers as she got her meal, I literally ran out of the caff to claim the same bounty of  awesome. How I missed this table on my way into the dining hall is something I’ll never understand:

If heaven is anything like this table, I promise to start being more virtuous.

If your friend is a zombie, destroy the brain or remove the head IMMEDIATELY.

I was thrilled when I first saw Flu Buddy because its perhaps the easiest and yet most enjoyable concept to make fun of ever. The fact that this has been adapted into a full-blown Flu Buddy Campaign only confirms my assumption that it is my moral obligation to mock it endlessly. I mean, there’s nothing that gets students, college students more specifically, taking a serious issue like Swine Flu seriously than stickers:

The only stickers I would ever consider putting on my laptop.

However, all of the students here at BU will really start  being more cautious about the flu when they see me rockin’ this bad-boy:

Screams "Don't mess"

I’ll admit, the thought has crossed my mind that perhaps the people at Student Health Services are like me – that they emulate absurd things (like the patronizing, annoying ways adults often try to relate to the younger generation) to be humorous and get attention. Also I have considered that they’re like Glenn Beck – they do absurd things to get attention (in this analogy they are Glenn Beck, I am Jon Stewart). However, I feel like this is a genuine case of “What is cool? Superheroes are cool. College kids will relate to superheroes.” Either way, this whole thing makes me so happy, and if Flu Buddy has taught me anything its that nothing prevents the Swine like happiness.

I went to CVS today  because I forgot to steal laundry detergent from home this weekend and my mouse needed new batteries (unfortunately I accidentally bough AAAA batteries, which I didn’t even know existed. God damn). When I was waiting in line, I heard the most absurd conversation between a customer and the man running the register.

The customer was purchasing a pack of cigarettes. As is the norm with cigarettes, said customer intended to smoke them, but  needed some form of personal combustion to do so, so he asked the clerk for a book of matches. The clerk responded, “I’m sorry, but we don’t sell matches. We sell cigarettes, but don’t condone smoking.” The customer was rightfully confused. The clerk went on to explain that though CVS believes it is the customer’s right to choose to smoke, it does not condone it, so they don’t sell matches. However, the man at the register let the customer know that he could purchase the $5.00 lighter behind the counter, if he liked.

Always trying to protect its customers. (Click for photo source)

Holy crap. If someone had warned me that I was about to be bombarded with this unbelievable shit-storm of stupidity, I’d have brought an umbrella to guard myself. I don’t even know where to begin in pointing out the logical fallacies CVS has adopted to justify its ridiculous ban on matches. The PR team at CVS must believe its customers to be incredibly dimwitted if they expected us to believe for a second that CVS was doing a public service by not selling matches. If you don’t condone cigarettes, you don’t sell them. Period. Additionally, if you don’t condone cigarettes but you support the right of your customer to make the decision to smoke, then you sell cigarettes and matches or cheap lighters; otherwise you might as well not be selling cigarettes. Finally, if your method of cigarette prevention is to not sell lighters or matches, then you shouldn’t sell any period; there shouldn’t be some over-priced profit-grabbing exception.

Dear God, CVS. I mean, honestly, fuck you. How dare you condescend me so violently. I don’t even smoke, and I find this to be appalling – not the fact that they supposedly don’t condone smoking, but the fact that they have chosen to do so in a way which plainly amounts to lying. CVS quite obviously condones the profits they reap from cigarettes and it is clear from their policy that these profits are more important to them than genuinely not condoning cigarettes by not selling them. Their “right to choose” justification is made null by the fact that they’re not actually providing their customers with that right. Correction: they practice socio-economic discrimination, allowing only those who can afford a $5.00 lighter to practice their right to choose.

In conclusion CVS, thank you for the $3.00 laundry detergent and the AAAA batteries which I will be returning later today. Can you return  batteries?

“Loose Change” was not easy for me to dismiss.  I watched it twice.  9/11 is an occurrence that is kind of hard to dismiss—especially if you were caught in the midst of it like me.  Three days after we received this assignment, I connected with a very dear, old friend via Facebook.  My friend lives in Nigeria.  On September 11, 2001, he lived in New York. 

After all of the pleasantries, he went on to tell me via our Facebook exchange, “isn’t it wild, but my fondest memory of you occurred on 9/11”.  Now, that’s a hell of thing to remember about a person.  What my friend Michael is referring to has to do with him connecting with me via AOL instant messenger.  Through AOL, I found out my friend was alive, and as a result I was able to let his family in Washington, DC and in Nigeria know the same. 

There was no “truthiness” in that, only truth.

For me, “Loose Change” only widens the gap of not knowing what happened that day.  If “truthiness” is the term used to define the “Loose Change” documentary, okay I guess I like the other hundreds of thousands of people I will have to go with it.  Do we really want to know what happened that day?  Adding insult to injury, if the journey into Wikipedia is much more complicated then 9/11, we’re really in trouble, aren’t we? 

As I have said in previous posts, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.  Don’t get me wrong, like the idea of crowd-souring knowledge into one large encyclopedia, but we have to draw the line somewhere.  We should all trust Wikipedia enough to quench our curiosities, but know we can’t stop there.   Besides from what I’ve learned, Wikipedia’s “truthiness” might be to our detriment—just ask newsman John Seigenthaler.

Here’s my truth, I am more inclined to trust Encyclopedia Britannica over Wikipedia.  Perhaps, it’s generational, or maybe it’s because I know encyclopedias have been around longer, for the most part are proven, and have expert oversight.  Attempting to make Wikipedia an expert-led encyclopedia at this point in time defeats its original purpose.  If we invite the experts in, what happens to the crowd? 

Damn, just one more thing to haggle over.

I never meant this to happen.

love, New Jersey

If your like me and you don’t know what to do now that MadMen has ended it’s third season, then you should check out this great interview by the Daily Beast with Matt Weirner. He talks about his descision for ending the Draper mariage, the future of Ken, Sal and Harry and a few other topics we still have a million questions about. This may not tie you over for next season but it will certainly satisfy your lunch.

The Times last week featured a charming story about Peter Carter-Ruck – founder of the controversial law firm that still bears his name – standing up for freedom by ensuring that Nabokov’s Lolita made it past the censors in prissy 1950s Britain:

With all the brouhaha over Carter-Ruck allegedly stifling free speech it is intriguing to note that it was the very founder of the firm who struck a blow for freedom of expression 60 years ago…

I’ve read enough cheap puff pieces to know a hustle when I see one, so I did a quick Google search on the article’s author, Alex Wade. Low and behold:

Alex worked for leading libel firm Carter-Ruck before becoming now-Express Group proprietor Richard Desmond’s first Head of Legal Affairs.

Funny that by far the most positive piece of coverage about Carter Ruck in recent weeks was penned by someone who used to be on the payroll. True to mainstream media standards, The Times makes no mention of this rather crucial biographical detail…

Here’s Alex Wade on Peter Carter Ruck:

It is one of literary history’s abiding curiosities that Lolita’s publication was thanks to a man who later became the claimant libel lawyer par excellence.

And here’s what another former associate, David Hooper, has to say about him:

The man who created the modern libel industry was a dedicated liar and a reactionary with a lust for cash… He was a chancer, out for the maximum fee. And he did for freedom of speech what the Boston Strangler did for door-to-door salesmen.

For the record, I still really hate Twitter. I suppose I’m somewhat okay with other microblogging sites like Texts From Last Night and what not, but Twitter still pisses me off. However the only thing that pisses me off more than Twitter is that WordPress doesn’t offer a way for readers to subscribe to your blog. So I set up a Twitter account so anyone who wants to know when I make new posts can be notified. I’m unhappy about this.

It is with a heavy heart that I say: follow me on Twitter.

I was recently taken behind the woodshed and schooled in the fine art of headline writing by a member of the local blogarazzi.

After raising objections about the truthiness of a blog headline, things were explained to me thusly: As long as a headline can be defended as accurate from a purely technical standpoint, it’s fair game — even if said headline is used simply to take a cheap shot.

That sounds a tad convoluted, so let’s use an example that is easier to follow.

Consider the following two headlines:

Joplin man pens thriller

and

Middle-school teacher self-publishes book; writes of teacher peeking at teen girls’ breasts on first page

In a technical sense, both of these headlines can be defended as completely accurate. They contain information that is true and can be defended as such. Now, given that the book likely contains thousands of other sentences that have nothing at all to do with a perverted teacher copping inappropriate glances at his students’ breasts, isn’t it kind of a douche move to cherry pick one that is?

Sure. But as long as you can hinge it on being technically accurate, it would appear that all’s fair in writing a headline.

Here endeth the lesson.

Amid a series of heart-felt cheery tales of rape, pillage, slavery, gay-hating, and godly vengeance, the Bible specifically stipulates that it is the right of every good Christian to pirate music and movies from the Internet, in its own non-specific interpretive fashion.

Jesus feeds the multitudes.

On two occasions in the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ feeds crowds of thousands from only a few loaves of bread and a few fish. Though he is encouraged by his disciples to turn the crowds away, Jesus demands that they be fed. However, the disciples and Jesus all knew that they could not afford enough bread and fish to feed crowds in the thousands. It was in this dilemma that Jesus developed the first Peer2Peer network. He sent his disciples to buy what bread and fish they could. As the story goes, Jesus “then [...] took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. They all ate and were satisfied.” Jesus purchased the original food and then used his miraculous power to share it with the entire crowd. He did not steal bread or fish from the shopkeeper but simply copied his own and distributed it to the hungry. Had he not done this, no one in the crowd would have eaten, and surely they all would not have had the money to purchase their own food. Had the RIAA existed in biblical times, they would have crucified Christ right then and there, or at least slapped him with millions in fines.

What Jesus did in feeding the multitudes amounts to an early form of file sharing. He purchased original content, duplicated it, and shared it with a crowd of thousands. He did not steal, but used his powers to make copies, just as Internet pirates use their Gates-given powers to copy their files and distribute them over the Internet. Just look at this comparative flow chart:

Click for higher resolution.

It is clear from the comparison of these two events that not only did Jesus commit the Biblical equivalent of file-sharing aka Internet piracy, but also that he would encourage such behavior so that all the world can be happy. In fact, I believe Jesus would offer that it is our moral obligation to download content from the Internet. However, for now, I am a sinner, because Satan’s armies in the RIAA and the MPAA won’t allow me to legally fulfill my Christian obligation.

"FUCK THE RIAA ARGHH"

I know NOTHING about weight loss programs, loosing weight, or good diets. For instance, this past summer  I came up with this diet plan where I only ate one big meal a day and didn’t eat anything else. Turns out that’s like the worst thing that you can do because your body starts storing more fat or something stupid like that. If my body was smarter, it would know to just stop storing fat, so like, body, wtf? Evolve already.

However, even with my volume of ignorance on the subject, I know that there is no way that eating a fucking cookie is going to make me lose weight unless it has a tapeworm, laxative, or vomit inducer in it. Jesus. This is the stupidest commercial I have ever seen:

“Eat cookies, lose weight, its that simple!” Jesus christ. Okay here’s my problem: if cookie monster isn’t allowed to eat cookies on tv, then some stupid baby-wielding bitch should not be able to tell America that all you have to do is eat cookies to lose weight. The saddest thing about this is that there are people out there buying these stupid cookies thinking that they can maintain their normal diets and keep their fatasses glued to the couch crying along with The Biggest Loser and actually lose weight.

Additionally if loosing weight turns you into a big stupid douche, I’d much rather be fat:

Douche.